Opening Speech for Second Reading of Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Sir, this is a joint Bill by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Ministry of National Development (MND) and Ministry of Law (MinLaw). The Bill has been put together after a holistic review of the Community Disputes Management Framework, or CDMF in short. In doing so, we have also consulted extensively with the public and other stakeholders. This included more than 30 focus group discussions with members of the public, academics as well as frontline personnel.

Sir, let me start by broadly outlining the main enhancements in this Bill to the CDMF framework in three key areas.

First, the Bill will strengthen the community mediation framework. It will empower authorised officers to direct disputing neighbours to attend mediation at the Community Mediation Centre. This will effectively make mediation mandatory.

This move will strengthen our ability to bring neighbours together, in an amicable environment to discuss their differences and understand each other's perspectives. Mediation is quick, it will be made free, and thus far, has proven effective. We will therefore strengthen this framework to encourage neighbour disputes to be amicably resolved, as a measure of first resort.

Second, the Bill proposes the setting up of a dedicated Community Relations Unit, or CRU in short. CRU officers will have a range of investigatory and enforcement powers to intervene in neighbour disputes. This includes the power to issue advisories, warnings and abatement orders. The CRU will focus on addressing severe noise and hoarding disamenity cases. A substantial proportion of neighbour dispute cases involve noise disamenity. This will plug an existing gap where agencies do not presently have sufficient powers to intervene, to more effectively deal with some individuals who are seriously disrupting the community harmony with their behaviour.

Third, Sir, the Bill enhances the powers and processes of the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, or CDRT in short. By and large, once this new framework becomes fully operational, we expect most of the disamenity cases to be addressed by the mediation enhancements, or by the CRU framework that we will put in place. There will, however, be a small fraction of cases that will be harder to resolve, where parties might be intransigent and where the issues at hand might have become deep-rooted. These will come before the CDRT.

By the time these cases get to the CDRT, these cases will need to be managed quickly and effectively. We will therefore revise the CDRT framework to enable this.

In my speech, Sir, I will first set out our overall approach to managing community disputes. And thereafter, explain the details which underpin each of the three areas of enhancements. My colleague, Senior Minister of State for National Development Sim Ann, will be overseeing the CRU powers under the new Part 2A. She will share more details on the CRU framework and directed mediation by frontline officers in her speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a densely populated city-state. When individuals, most of us, live close to one another, some degree of friction will inevitably arise. Over the past three years, public agencies have received more than 90,000 pieces of feedback on neighbour noise alone. Let me just say that again – 90,000 pieces of feedback on neighbour noise alone! On average, that is around 2,500 complaints every month, or over 80 complaints every day.

Noise complaints, by far, form the vast majority of all neighbour disputes feedback received by agencies. Most complaints, not surprisingly, come from Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates – since around 80% of our population reside in HDB estates. But having said that, we are not unique in having this problem. Other cities around the world face similar issues. In the United Kingdom (UK), for example, it has been reported that at least two in five people have had disagreements with their neighbours. And, like in Singapore, noise disamenity is the top cause of disputes in the UK.

In 2014, we formalised our approach for managing neighbour disputes under the umbrella of the CDMF. That was when we first set up the CDMF. The CDMF seeks to promote good relations among neighbours to minimise the occurrence of disputes. So, it is not just a question of dealing with the disamenity, but how do we go upstream to manage the conflict at an early stage. It also seeks to encourage neighbours to resolve issues amicably among themselves when such disputes arise. It helps to promote community mediation as the primary source of assistance if neighbours need to resolve their differences, and it provides for the CDRT, as an avenue of last resort.

So, as a primary starting point, I want to emphasise to Members in this House, that even as we introduce this Bill to substantially strengthen the CDMF framework, our aim remains building a strong, resilient and cohesive community where neighbours are friendly with one another, they are more likely to be tolerant and understanding. And they will then, in turn, be more open to discussing minor annoyances which may arise and then aiming to constructively address them without escalation.

We have thus far taken steps to foster a shared understanding of community norms among residents when it comes to noise. Let me share one initiative.

In 2022, MND brought together representatives from various sectors and set up the Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise, or CAP in short. More than 4,400 members of the public, participated in CAP's engagements. Many agreed that the first step in managing noise disputes should be communication with neighbours. The CAP also highlighted the importance of practising considerate behaviour. It highlighted some simple, but sometimes we take for granted, practical steps that residents can take in their day to day living. For example, using door stoppers to prevent the accidental slamming of windows and doors. Or closing the windows when engaging in noisy activities, like karaoke and other such pursuits that one might enjoy at home.

Since then, MND has worked with the Singapore Kindness Movement and agencies like HDB to promote the community norms and encourage considerate behaviour.

Despite this, occasionally, I think we have all come across in each of our constituency, occasions where disputes between neighbours will arise. These disputes do not usually raise law-and-order issues. So, it is not a matter for the Police. Instead, these disputes usually, though not always, stem from differences in lifestyles, schedules, depending on working schedules, preferences at home. We might have parents with young energetic children – nothing wrong with that – but they live next to teenagers preparing for exams or the elderly who might need their rest at an earlier hour in the day. The laughter of children may bring joy to many but, in some situations or occasions it is an intrusion on peace and tranquillity. Nothing wrong with the needs of both sides but, sometimes, finding that common ground to alleviate this dispute is a challenge.

When such disputes arise, our guiding principle has been that neighbours should proactively and constructively engage with one another and try to reach a workable compromise. If they are unable to do so themselves, they should seek assistance from a community mediator. Mediators at the Community Mediation Centre, or CMC for short, have deep experience in facilitating effective dialogue between disputing neighbours and encouraging them to find common ground.

This, we feel, and continue to feel even with the new CDMF framework, is the best way to resolve a dispute between neighbours. It is non-confrontational, it preserves the long-standing relationship as far as possible and, overall, maintains harmony in society.

Indeed, as an Asian society, amicable resolution is not unknown. Respected elders in the community in the past, like village headmen or clan or religious leaders, used to help in this process. They stepped in, lowered temperatures, heard both sides, found common ground.

Times may have changed. But I think the underlying principles of amicable resolution through discussion and compromise remain just as relevant, if not more, relevant today.

Indeed, many neighbour disputes have been resolved in this way and that was one of the considerations we took into account as we formulated the enhancements in this Bill. Today, around 90% of neighbour noise feedback is resolved after grassroots and other community leaders or HDB officers helped both sides to reach an amicable compromise. Many of the remaining disputes are resolved after neighbours attend mediation at the CMC.

So, we know that conciliation is effective in resolving community disputes. It saves time and cost and, as I said, preserves the longer-term goodwill in the relationship.

And so, this has remained the guiding philosophy with which we have approached the proposed enhancements to the CDMF framework in this Bill.

So, let me start on the three buckets of enhancements with mediation.

The first part of the enhancements is straightforward. We want all suitable cases to go through an amicable mediation in the first instance. We will, therefore, empower authorised officers to direct disputing parties, the neighbours, to attend mediation at the CMC in appropriate cases.

Today, we have often heard of many cases where one or both sides refused to engage in mediation even though we might think that is the best option for them. They might refuse to consider mediation for a variety of reasons. Some are personal ones, some perhaps may be ill-conceived ones. Or they register for mediation, but then do not show up.

The new directed mediation powers will strengthen our ability to address such cases. It will enable us to bring neighbours together for a good discussion in a non-confrontational space, at the CMC or perhaps some other agreed venue, and coming together is a critical step in finding a solution to resolving a dispute.

So, Sir, under the new section 13M that is inserted under clause 14, authorised persons, such as a community relations officer or an officer from the CMC, may issue a Mediation Direction to individuals involved in a complaint or dispute involving alleged unreasonable interference.

Public officers or officers from a statutory body, such as HDB, can also be appointed to issue Mediation Directions. Parties who receive a Mediation Direction must attend mediation at the CMC. Failure to comply, without reasonable excuse, will be an offence.

The statutory thresholds for Mediation Directions to be issued under section 13M have been deliberately kept low. Authorised officers, such as HDB officers, may issue these Directions if there is a complaint or dispute involving neighbours, and that complaint or dispute relates to alleged unreasonable interference.

Officers are not required to conduct detailed fact-finding to determine who is right or who is wrong, or, indeed, the nature or extent of the alleged nuisance. The role of these frontline officers, as first responders to a community dispute, is not to determine fault in that first instance, but to bring the neighbours together for open dialogue and, if need be, through a Mediation Direction.

As I mentioned earlier, mediation at CMC is quick and effective. Our statistics have shown that, today, more than 80% of voluntary mediation cases at the CMC are settled amicably. Since 2014, CMC mediators have helped to make peace between neighbours in more than 2,400 cases. These are cases, of course, where the parties had agreed to attend mediation and did attend mediation. We might, therefore, expect to see the settlement rates become lower once directed mandatory mediation takes place. But if we can even help more neighbours to make peace through a consensual, amicable arrangement, that is still a good outcome.

And even if after going through the process, mediation were to be unsuccessful in that it did not result in a compromise or an amicable solution, time, I think, is not wasted. Parties would have heard each other's perspectives and this can help to lay the groundwork for eventual resolution.

Next, Sir, as we strengthen the ability to foster open dialogue between parties, we should also give more "bite" to the settlement agreements that parties enter into, after a successful mediation. So, under the new section 31A, we sought to strike a balance. Parties who come to a settlement can opt to register their settlement agreement as a CDRT order if both parties consent.

Thus, if one party to the agreement breaches the settlement terms, assuming it is registered, then the other party can quickly proceed to use the simplified CDRT process to enforce the settlement agreement in the same way as a CDRT order. This helps to facilitate quicker and simpler recourse if registered settlements are breached. And in such situations, I would hope that neighbours, disputing parties, need not be trigger-happy to always seek enforcement applications in the first instance. They can sometimes inquire with their neighbours as to why or how such an order came to be breached or an agreement came to be breached and I would say if you can speak to your neighbour first, there is a good chance you might then find a way to reach a compromise and resolve the matter, having already done so once.

The simpler Court enforcement process is there to ensure that, if it is indeed breached and there is no subsequent solution found, then, thereafter, the relief can be quick and expeditious. But that, really, I would encourage as a measure of last resort in this case.

Sir, let me move on to the CRU. This is the second bucket of enhancements to the CDMF.

Sir, we have seen cases where the disamenity in question does not amount to law-and-order issues. But at the same time, they are severely disrupting community peace. For example, we have heard of cases where a neighbour deliberately disrupts the peace by banging loudly on the walls or the ceilings throughout the day and, even sometimes, in the middle of the night continuously.

There are also cases where the acts might not be deliberate or consciously deliberate. But the community nonetheless suffers disamenity, impacting harmony and quality of life and, sometimes we see severe hoarding cases as some examples. Fortunately, at this point in time, these cases are still in the small minority. But if left unaddressed, they can escalate and, thereafter, have an outsized impact on the community. So, we are thinking of how we can pre-emptively disrupt this.

Today, agencies do not have sufficient powers to effectively address them. We have considered this carefully and also studied what other countries have done. In our public consultations, Singaporeans have generally agreed that we need stronger levers to act decisively and effectively in these types of cases. We have decided, therefore, to set up a dedicated CRU.

Under the new Part 2A, the Bill proposes for CRU officers to have a range of powers to investigate, take decisive action in neighbour disputes that involve unreasonable interference, and this includes the kinds of cases that I have given examples of.

Officers may investigate, for example, by taking statements from neighbours or taking photographs and recordings, which can then have evidential value. This can help ameliorate cases which very often we see descend into a "he said/she said there is this noise at that time" or "this volume and that volume". I think this helps to cut through all that and allows objective statements and evidence to be taken.

Under the new sections 13I and 13J, the CRU may also leverage on technology and deploy noise sensors, with consent, to collect objective evidence of noise events.

After investigations are completed, officers may issue advisories or warnings, as appropriate. These warnings or advisories do not carry penalties, in the first instance.

But if they are not heeded, then an abatement order under section 13L may be issued subsequently. An abatement order can require the recipient to stop any acts that are causing unreasonable interference to surrounding neighbours, and it will be an offence under section 13L subsection 5 to disobey an abatement order without reasonable excuse.

I hope we do not always have to resort to issuing an abatement order. Sometimes, the mere presence of a uniformed officer with powers will be sufficient in itself to abate certain behaviours. Other times, a warning may then have to be issued.

Over time, Sir, we hope to see this framework have a salutary effect or a self-moderating impact on both the community and individual residents. The community will know the boundaries, and then begin to self-police.

Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will expand on the details on the new CRU. But before I leave the topic, let me explain the thinking behind the role of the CRU and the scope of its powers.

The statutory powers that will be conferred on the CRU in this Bill under the new Part 2A have been drafted to cover a range of matters. These are matters which usually cause community disputes. They can cover a wide range of acts or omissions, which can lead to unreasonable interference with a neighbour's enjoyment or use of place of residence and this is intended to cater for flexibility in the CRU's deployment to allow it to do its work effectively.

However, it is not intended for the CRU to become the first responder in all cases, and that is simply not possible.

The CRU will focus its resources only on severe neighbour noise cases that are causing disamenity to the community and also severe hoarding cases. As I explained earlier, this noise, in particular, forms the vast majority of neighbour disamenity complaints and we have got to balance resources against what impact can be felt in the community and how we feel these resources best make a difference to resolving disputes between neighbours.

The CRU will, of course, have discretion to judge the severity of these matters and cases, having regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and we will reflect this in subsidiary legislation made under section 13Z read with section 13G.

It is, therefore, not our intention in this Bill to be overly prescriptive. CRU Officers will assess on a case-by-case basis and have the ability to make a judgement call. In general, due to the transitory nature of noise, a case would be considered severe only if it persists over a period of time. But, in some cases, a single occurrence might well possibly be treated as severe.

For example, if a person deliberately takes a drill to his wall or ceiling at 3.00 am, in the middle of the night with the intent of waking up his neighbours, then HDB officers might well look into this the next day and, if it happens again, the CRU may treat it as "severe".

I would also like to caution that we must strike a balance between the CRU stepping in to manage a dispute and also at the same time leaving enough room for neighbours to settle their private disputes between themselves. I think we have to strike that balance very judiciously and very carefully. If we intervene too much, we take away the community's ability to self-police and self-moderate, which is the essence of really good neighbourliness.

With the CRU framework, the Government is already taking a significant step forward, to lean forward to help to resolve these cases, particularly if they threaten to have a wider negative impact on the community.

Fundamentally though, we believe that most neighbour disputes ought to be addressed by strengthening the community in the manner that I have outlined earlier and creating an overdependence on the State to police community behaviours at home will invariably weaken the community's ability to self-moderate.

In addition, we must be prudent with how we spend our limited resources and manpower. And I think Members can appreciate that, for a matter like this, for the CRU to be stepping in on those occasions with the kinds of cases and the volume of cases or noise that I have outlined, it is very resource-intensive. And this is a substantial endeavour, both in terms of resources as well as manpower.

As such, we intend to, first, pilot the CRU in the HDB estate of Tampines town. The learnings from this pilot will help us understand how to effectively scale up these operations and make it effective and efficient island-wide.

During the CRU pilot in Tampines, grassroots leaders and frontline agencies will continue existing efforts to manage neighbour disputes, both in Tampines as well as applying in the rest of Singapore. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will share more details on the CRU.

I move on, Sir, to the third bucket of enhancements in this Bill, which is the CDRT. We intend, as I said earlier, for the CDRT to remain an avenue of last resort. I mentioned earlier that many difficult noise and hoarding cases should be addressed by directed mediation enhancements or by the CRU framework.

We are hopeful that, eventually, only a small fraction of cases will remain unresolved after these layers of upstream intervention. By the time we get to this stage, however, these cases are likely to be quite severe and protracted, involving a recalcitrant party.

We will therefore enhance the CDRT's processes and powers; and equip it to deliver quicker and more effective relief. Some of the CDRT enhancements will also go towards supporting upstream amicable resolution efforts.

Let me take Members through the key amendments. First, under the new section 18A, there will be a general requirement that residents must first attempt mediation before filing a CDRT claim. This, I think, is just the flip side of imposing mandatory mediation. This ensures that neighbours do not take each other to the CDRT, without at least first trying mediation.

We do this, because when we look back at our cases, in the last five years, more than 70% of CDRT claimants indicated that they did not first attempt CMC mediation, before filing a CDRT claim.

So, we think that there is a reservoir of cases out there that will benefit from mandatory mediation, even on the existing framework as it currently exists. And this is not what we want to see. We accept that there may be some cases that could not or may not be suitable for mediation – and there is, therefore, flexibility in section 18A to waive pre-filing mediation for such cases.

But, by and large, I would say residents should go for mediation first. Court proceedings should be the last resort. It is always better for parties to agree on an arrangement that both are comfortable with and both are prepared to abide by, than for a third party to adjudicate and then direct what one party can or cannot do. This, in the long term, leads to more lasting peace in the community.

Next, under new sections 13I subsection 4, and 13J subsection 4, the DG of CRU and CRU officers may disclose information gathered, in the course of their work, to the CDRT. This brings the CRU process closer to the CDRT, if necessary. This will help to alleviate the evidential difficulty highlighted by a number of CDRT users. They often tell us when we conduct our focus group discussions and take feedback, "How do we gather evidence of noise which is transient or transitory, and how do we ensure that when we get to the CDRT, we can establish the provenance of that piece of evidence".

So, we decided that we would bring the process of the CDRT closer to that of the evidence collected by the CRU.

In the proposed new framework, therefore, if the CRU had previously looked into the case, and a CDRT claim is thereafter filed, then the evidence gathered – such as observations, noise sensor data, statements from neighbours or previously-issued warnings and compliance or non-compliance therewith – can be submitted to the CDRT, for consideration.

This is so that claimants need not start all over again to prove their cases afresh. They will not need to gather evidence from ground zero that CRU officers had already gathered and which they possess. This will also help the CDRT come to a fair decision in a shorter period of time.

Third, under the new section 12A, the CDRT will be empowered to issue a Mandatory Treatment Order, or MTO for short. MTOs can be issued if the CDRT has reason to believe that the respondent's acts of unreasonable interference stem, at least in part, from an underlying psychiatric condition. Such a condition sometimes causes a person to disrupt the community, with noise or even hoarding, sometimes even unknowingly. In those cases, the issue therefore is not just a disamenity one. Hence, the MTO is intended to address the root cause of certain acts that a resident may engage in.

Our priority will remain to persuade the resident to voluntarily go for treatment, and I want to emphasise that a CDRT-issued MTO will be a measure of last resort, taking into account the circumstances.

Members will see that the Bill provides for a robust framework to ensure that MTOs are issued only in deserving and appropriate cases. And I think it is worth outlining the framework to Members in some detail.

Under section 12A subsection 1, the claimant must first establish that the respondent has caused unreasonable interference. Next, the CDRT must have reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent is likely suffering from a psychiatric condition; and the psychiatric condition is likely contributing to the acts of unreasonable interference. So, there must be a nexus between the behaviour or the suspected behaviour and the interference.

There is an On-site Psychiatrist Scheme in the State Courts to facilitate this assessment. After both conditions are met, the CDRT must, under subsection 8, call for a formal assessment from an appointed psychiatrist.

The respondent may also submit a report from a psychiatrist of his choice, and the CDRT can only make a MTO if the formal assessment report certifies certain matters – such as the respondent's suitability for treatment. These measures ensure that improper applications are dismissed early, so that the party is not put through the course of the proceedings unnecessarily. It also ensures that MTOs are only made in appropriate cases.

Next, let me touch on costs orders. Clause 21 of the Bill repeals and replaces section 25 and clause 27(c) expands the existing rule-making power on costs.

At present, Members may know that other than disbursements, costs cannot be awarded in CDRT proceedings. We will amend this and align with the general costs position under the Rules of Court 2021. In particular, the CDRT will be able to award costs to self-represented persons, on the usual costs principles. This compensates him for the time and work required for the proceedings.

We also intend to make subsidiary legislation to the effect that costs can be awarded against a party who did not make efforts at amicable resolution. This will include situations where a resident declined an invitation from his neighbour to attend voluntary mediation, without good reason. So, in other words, even before you invoke mandatory mediation, if a neighbour approaches one party to offer voluntary mediation outside of this rubric, and one unreasonably refuses to take up the offer, the Courts at the CDRT can take this into account when considering the costs orders to be made.

The intention, ultimately, is to encourage dispute resolution at the earliest possible opportunity. And it would be best if neighbours go for mediation voluntarily – and not just wait for a Mediation Direction to be issued.

Next, under the new section 5A, the CDRT will be empowered to issue Interim Orders on a prima facie threshold if the acts of unreasonable interference are likely to continue, likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the claimant, or his day-to-day activities, and it is just and equitable for an interim order to be made.

This will help claimants with serious cases to obtain relief more quickly, even as they wait for their cases to make their way through the process of the CDRT. Even though we have expedited it, there might be some occasions where the disamenity of the interference is pressing and severe.

Next, the new section 10A, addresses tenant-occupied properties. We have heard feedback that some landlords adopt a "hands-off" approach, refusing to intervene even after being informed and being made aware that their tenants are causing a nuisance. This is not desirable. Landlords are key stakeholders in this ecosystem. They have a responsibility to exercise some oversight on their tenants' conduct.

Hence, under the new section 10A, residents who experience unreasonable interference from a tenant-occupied property can notify the landlord. The landlord must then act to abate the nuisance from his tenant. If the nuisance is not abated, and the affected resident succeeds on a CDRT claim, then the CDRT can make an order against the tenant. Concurrently, the CDRT can require the landlord to put up a bond to secure his tenant's compliance with the CDRT order. And if the tenant does not comply, then the Court may forfeit all, or part of, the landlord's bond.

This effectively brings forward the existing compliance bond that can currently already be made against a landlord. There is already a provision for such a landlord's bond in the current framework. It empowers the affected resident, under these amendments, to involve the landlord at an early stage, and this improves the chances of an amicable resolution in these cases.

Next, while mediation should be the first resort, there can be exceptional situations where it is necessary for the case to be brought before the CDRT. Under the new section 17A, the DG of CRU may apply for a dispute to be heard and determined by the CDRT, if satisfied that this is necessary in the interests of preserving the community peace.

For example, there may be a protracted dispute between neighbours, where both parties, for example, could agree on the specific noise event, such as children playing in the corridor or making noise beyond a certain level and so on.

But they may disagree strongly on whether that constitutes unreasonable interference. Or parties may have tried for some time, and there is evidence of that, but are unable to resolve this through other means, after multiple rounds of mediation, and they keep looking to CRU to make an intervention or make a finding, whilst at the same time, both parties themselves refuse to submit the case to CDRT for adjudication.

In such cases, by way of example, the DG of the CRU may bring this to the CDRT for resolution; and the CDRT can require disputing residents to attend Court, and examine the dispute, before making orders.

Along with that, the CDRT will be empowered, under the new section 5B, to vary an order, if there is a change in the personal circumstances of the applicant and it is just and equitable to do so. For example, when the original terms are no longer workable. The CDRT may also vary its order to address situations where respondents attempt to circumvent the original order.

Next, the CDRT processes are designed to be simple, judge-led and accessible. And with these amendments, we intend for it to be more so. But this also raises the possibility of abuse. Once you set the bar too low, it is easy to access, and people file claims easily. And just like we come across occasions where our residents complain to us of a disamenity of a neighbour, you may also have heard of the shoe being on the other foot, where the neighbour comes to us to complain that there are unreasonable complaints or calls to the Police or calls to HDB being made by their neighbour.

In such cases, sometimes parties may exploit the simple low-cost process and commence unmeritorious claims and sometimes repeatedly so. Therefore, under the new sections 31B to 31E, the CDRT will be empowered to make civil restraint orders. For example, if a person makes two or more applications that are totally without merit or are an abuse of process, then the CDRT can restrain the person from making further applications, unless permission is granted.

Sir, on a final note, this Bill also amends the Community Mediation Centres Act or the CMC Act, the Housing and Development Act and the Police Force Act. These are all, as a consequence of the enhancements that I have outlined.

The CMC Act is amended to support the new directed mediation framework. The amendments also clarify that community mediation may be conducted by virtual means, like video conferencing and this adds to the convenience of parties attending mediation.

The Housing and Development Act is amended to enable HDB to consider compulsory acquisition of HDB flats in egregious cases – and Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will expand on this point later.

The Police Force Act is amended to repeal the existing community warden powers under sections 65C and 65D. This is because it is no longer required, with the creation of the CRU.

Other consequential amendments are made under clauses 30, 38 and 39 of this Bill.

Sir, let me conclude. I hope that the enhancements under this Bill will address many of the cases that are escalated to agencies every year – and you heard the numbers earlier. For example, cases where neighbours are unwilling to take the first step to engage with one another, or for one reason or another, refuse to do so.

Or cases where the neighbourly relationship has deteriorated to the point where a person is deliberately disrupting the community peace, sometimes to get back at the neighbour. Or cases where CDRT claimants find it difficult, when they go through the process – having had mediation, but failed – and the case is protracted, it is intransigent, it is severe, but you go through a process where you then have to lead evidence afresh, almost from ground zero again. All that, we try and change, and improve with these sets of amendments.

At the same time, Sir, I wish very much to emphasise that these enhancements cannot be seen as a silver bullet – they are not a panacea, they are not a silver bullet, they cannot address everyone's disputes and ills between neighbours. There will likely be cases that will continue to resist resolution, even under this enhanced framework.

Ultimately, this is delicate work, as I mentioned earlier, to balance between intervening too much with the framework that allows us all these measures of relief, but also empowering neighbours themselves to take ownership and responsibility of their own difficulties, their own neighbourly problems and resolve them themselves.

Ultimately, I call on all Members to help us, through our interactions with our residents, to build a gracious society, where neighbours are conscious of their roles in the community, to exercise mutual consideration for one another, and where differences are best bridged through discussion and compromise, and not necessarily by direction or order. Sir, with that, I beg to move.